CA10 — memorandum dispositions

United States v. Fridliefson, No. 08-4131 — The court denied a COA in a § 2255 appeal.  In pleading guilty to a drug charge with a stipulated sentence under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the petitioner agreed not to seek collateral review of his sentence except to the extent necessary to argue that it exceeded the statutory maximum penalty.  He filed a § 2255 motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.  The district court found the motion to be barred by the waiver provision in the plea agreement.  He argued that trial counsel was ineffective for incorrectly computing the applicable guildelines range, but the court concluded that error in computing the guidelines range did not affect the validity of the guilty plea or his decision to enter into a plea agreement.

Martin v. Ray, No. 08-5083 — The court denied a COA in a § 2254 appeal.  The petitioner had been charged with two counts of child abuse, but he was acquitted of one at trial.  He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.  He filed for federal habeas relief, raising three claims.  First, he argued that the statute of limitations had expired with respect to his charges.  Second, he argued that the trial court’s excluding a videotaped interview with a police detective violated his right to present a defense.  Third, the prosecutor improperly elicited an opinion from a witness regarding the petitioner’s truthfulness.  The district court rejected all these claims.  The court rejected these claims as unexhausted, procedurally defaulted, and meritless.